I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

1. Hadn't lost Wimbledon in 5 years
2. Beat him two years before
3. Played pretty decently throughout the tournament
4. Dat FO defeat the same year
5. Australian OP awful performance
6. Had his chances.

Well he just lost a final in Hamburg that he should have won, before that lost a final in MC where he was in control of both sets (one he was 4-0 up in and didn't even get to a tiebreak) and then got destroyed at RG. All to Nadal. Then he plays him again with all the pressure to readdress the balance, goes 2-0 down and being unable to take a break points, he then battles back only to lose. I'm surprised he didn't have the AO reaction there.

Yes he had won 5 times in a row, but Nadal won 4 RG titles in a row never losing a match and was pretty annoyed when he finally lost.

He could have won. It's frustrating to fail at something in life, when you know you could have achieve it, but if you fail to achieve something HUGE, that you've fought hard for and was within your grasp, it's devastating.

That win would've meant 6 wimbledons in a row, it would've avenged the ass kicking he took in the FO just a few weeks before, it would've been his first major that season since he lost the AO semis and FO finals..

it meant he might have been losing his grip on tennis and possibly getting to 15 may have been in doubt.

I'd say the '08 wimbledon and '09 AO losses to rafa were the toughest on him... even though the Djokavic '10 and '11 USO semi losses were suckier based on having the match points and stuff.

2009 happened and he got the career slam and the majors record, i don't think he's taken any losses nearly as hard... even though he's definitely had some horrible ones.

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

What's your point exactly? What do you mean by the loss bothering Fed "so much"? It's not like Federer dragged on for a long time after. He won the USO that year. And of course it's "one of his toughest losses". It was a Wimbledon final. Rain is wet. Posters in this thread so far also have their captain obvious hats on.

It's like asking why was Murray bothered "so much" losing Wimbledon last year, or why did the Soderling loss at RG bothered Nadal, or Rosol last year. Asking the latter would in fact make a little more sense since Nadal actually did drag on after these losses. But the question still would be meaningless.

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

He was pretty upset but I think AO 2009 hurt way more tbh, at that point it looked like Nadal might even start winning all the HC slams regularly and I think Roger thought that his time might be up.

Because Nadal beat him at his tournament whereas he couldn't return the favour at RG. In fact, he suffered the worst loss at a major vs Nadal at RG 08. His dominance at the top was slipping to his top rival as well. That said a loss against any player at Wimbledon after his consecutive 5 would have bothered him

1. Hadn't lost Wimbledon in 5 years
2. Beat him two years before
3. Played pretty decently throughout the tournament
4. Dat FO defeat the same year
5. Australian OP awful performance
6. Had his chances.

Click to expand...

This and more. It's pretty obvious why it bothered him.."changing of the guard," first non-clay slam final he lost to Rafa, first Wimbledon final loss for him..not sure how it is even a question why he'd be gutted

Well he just lost a final in Hamburg that he should have won, before that lost a final in MC where he was in control of both sets (one he was 4-0 up in and didn't even get to a tiebreak) and then got destroyed at RG. All to Nadal. Then he plays him again with all the pressure to readdress the balance, goes 2-0 down and being unable to take a break points, he then battles back only to lose. I'm surprised he didn't have the AO reaction there.

Yes he had won 5 times in a row, but Nadal won 4 RG titles in a row never losing a match and was pretty annoyed when he finally lost.

Click to expand...

I think it is why Fed got destroyed at FO08. He was up in both those previous clay matches, doing what he usually does, and somehow he still lost. At FO, he was just so frustrated he went kamikaze, and thus got destroyed as those pilots do.

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

huh? how much did it bother him, he went out and won the USO 2 months later, and made the final of each major in 2009, winning 2 of them.

by contrast Rafa lost at the FO and didnt make a slam final til FO 2010.
shock loss to Rosol, didnt play 7 months.

1. it was his home turf, in his mind (arrogant or not its up to you) his name should have already been put as the 2008 champion before hand.
2. Hadnt won a slam that year when the previous year he had won 3.
3. He couldnt believe he lost to nadal on grass after being destroyed in RG and not winning hamburg (which he really shouldve won)
4. Comes back from 2 sets down and gets a chance at 4-3 30-40 in the 5th and chokes it.

so yeah this one hurt because he really shouldve been agressive forced that first set to a breaker after having many bp's when rafa served for the set or shouldve won the second set 6-3 but instead falters and gives it away. And despite all that he finally comes back saving MP's and having a BP to serve for the match and falters. So yeah it sucks

Wimbledon is Federer's favorite tournament. If he had to pick one tournament to play, to win...everything...I'm pretty sure it would be Wimbledon.

He had a chance to set the open era record for consecutive Wimbledon titles, with 6. And he played in the greatest match of his career and came out the loser. A match like that will never come around again.

federer was 2 points from the title..being that close to winning wimbledon and losing would hurt (even if he did win 5 times already)..if he didnt care he wouldnt be the champion he is..

also we know always has one eye on tennis history, so being 2 points away from a record breaking 6 in a row at wimbledon would also gnaw away at him. (*renshaw won 6 in a row in 1880s when the title holder only had to play in the final the next year so it dosnt really count but we have to mention it :neutral

Wimbledon is Federer's favorite tournament. If he had to pick one tournament to play, to win...everything...I'm pretty sure it would be Wimbledon.

He had a chance to set the open era record for consecutive Wimbledon titles, with 6. And he played in the greatest match of his career and came out the loser. A match like that will never come around again.

Click to expand...

While I agree he played very well, I don't think it was THE best match of his career. I certainly think his level was just as good as 2007 only Nadal was giving him more trouble in 08 than 07.

I think if abmk sees this he won't sleep. He'll probably pull out a stat sheet to try and prove you wrong...

1. it was his home turf, in his mind (arrogant or not its up to you) his name should have already been put as the 2008 champion before hand.
2. Hadnt won a slam that year when the previous year he had won 3.
3. He couldnt believe he lost to nadal on grass after being destroyed in RG and not winning hamburg (which he really shouldve won)
4. Comes back from 2 sets down and gets a chance at 4-3 30-40 in the 5th and chokes it.

so yeah this one hurt because he really shouldve been agressive forced that first set to a breaker after having many bp's when rafa served for the set or shouldve won the second set 6-3 but instead falters and gives it away. And despite all that he finally comes back saving MP's and having a BP to serve for the match and falters. So yeah it sucks

Click to expand...

Dude, Nadal saved that BP on his own terms. Great body serve, and massive forehand DTL. That is a very poor example of "choking". That was just a case of being outplayed.

federer was 2 points from the title..being that close to winning wimbledon and losing would hurt (even if he did win 5 times already)..if he didnt care he wouldnt be the champion he is..

also we know always has one eye on tennis history, so being 2 points away from a record breaking 6 in a row at wimbledon would also gnaw away at him. (*renshaw won 6 in a row in 1880s when the title holder only had to play in the final the next year so it dosnt really count but we have to mention it :neutral

Click to expand...

So does this mean Decugis' 8 French titles don't count since only French players could play when he won his titles?

Someone said that that loss bothered Roger so much because Nadal lost today to yet another unknown bum and you have nothing better to do than dredge up this old news hoping it will cause others to feel miserable just like you.

Someone said that that loss bothered Roger so much because Nadal lost today to yet another unknown bum and you have nothing better to do than dredge up this old news hoping it will cause others to feel miserable just like you.

Click to expand...

Michael made this thread like 4 hours ago. The outcome of the match wasn't even decided at that point. He is just asking a question. Settle down and stop being so touchy about the topic Roger Federer.

To the OP: I don't think it bothered Fed TOO much. He's one of the best of all time at bouncing back from tough losses.

Click to expand...

Everybody knows this about Rog which is why I think the OP was being disingenuous or grasping a fake pretense to dis on Federer now that Rafa was beaten by another nobody today in Chile. "Hmmm, Rafa lost today. I am a big fan of his. Now that he lost, what should I do? I know! I will start a thread that will remind Fed fans of a painful loss; that way I will have company in my misery."

Michael made this thread like 4 hours ago. The outcome of the match wasn't even decided at that point. He is just asking a question. Settle down and stop being so touchy about the topic Roger Federer.

Click to expand...

Maybe he is "just asking a question" but I believe that most everyone has an angle, all the more so hard core sports fans innocently (yeah OK, sure) asking some charged question of the opposing fan base. C'mon man, let's be real here.

He lost the number 1 ranking after that match stopped short of the Sampras record by 1 week. That would have haunted him for a lifetime if he didnt turn it around last year.

Click to expand...

Uh no. While its true he lost the #1 ranking in August of 2008 he got it backin 2009 after winning RG and Wimby. Then he lost it again about a year later and got it back in 2012 after winning Wimbledon again.

Everybody knows this about Rog which is why I think the OP was being disingenuous or grasping a fake pretense to dis on Federer now that Rafa was beaten by another nobody today in Chile. "Hmmm, Rafa lost today. I am a big fan of his. Now that he lost, what should I do? I know! I will start a thread that will remind Fed fans of a painful loss; that way I will have company in my misery."

Why did he make it? I have only implied a possible reason. That he made it before the final only partially allays my suspicions as to the color of his motivation. That's all. I could be completely wrong, but I took the offensive knowing the risk involved. It is generally not good policy to attack other posters, but when you have a strong hunch about something, it is OK not to ignore your gut IMO. If he disagrees with what I said, he can add me to his ignore list or come straight back at me and refute what I said. I am not above taking correction in such events, and I do not seek nor need to have the final say.

When defining a subject, I was taught to set forward its essential attributes as the predicables and to avoid at all costs using examples of that subject, because from its genus a species inherits every property of the genus, but the genus does not have every property belonging to all of the species that it encompasses. If ever forced to use an example in defining a subject, I was taught to settle for no less than a superlative example, one that beyond any doubt bests illustrates the subject. For me, the superlative example of Roger taking a loss hard was 09 OZ where his tears gushed; and so, the predicable "bothered by" having been which the title of this thread attributes to Roger, was unsatisfying and seemed intellectually dishonest.

Why did he make it? I have only implied a possible reason. That he made it before the final only partially allays my suspicions as to the color of his motivation. That's all. I could be completely wrong, but I took the offensive knowing the risk involved. It is generally not good policy to attack other posters, but when you have a strong hunch about something, it is OK not to ignore your gut IMO. If he disagrees with what I said, he can add me to his ignore list or come straight back at me and refute what I said. I am not above taking correction in such events, and I do not seek nor need to have the final say.

When defining a subject, I was taught to set forward its essential attributes and to avoid at all costs using examples of that subject, because from its genus a species inherits every property of the genus, but the genus does not have every property belonging to all of the species that it encompasses. If ever forced to use an example in defining a subject, I was taught to settle for no less than a superlative example, one that beyond any doubt bests illustrates the subject. For me, the superlative example of Roger taking a loss hard was 09 OZ where his tears gushed. And so, on a Spiderman level I detected something was amiss when I read this thread title.

Click to expand...

Haha whoaaa tiger slow down. I made this before the final even started and if you knew my posting history, you'd know I'm also a Federer fan. I guess to me it was just surprising because I do believe he genuinely likes Rafa and he was the 5x defending champion when he lost. Like the next year when he beat Roddick and said his loss the previous year was tough and he understands, and Roddick was like, "yeah right you already had 5" lol, I sort of agree I guess. Not knocking him at all bc I like Fed. Was being serious with this topic.

Haha whoaaa tiger slow down. I made this before the final even started and if you knew my posting history, you'd know I'm also a Federer fan. I guess to me it was just surprising because I do believe he genuinely likes Rafa and he was the 5x defending champion when he lost. Like the next year when he beat Roddick and said his loss the previous year was tough and he understands, and Roddick was like, "yeah right you already had 5" lol, I sort of agree I guess. Not knocking him at all bc I like Fed. Was being serious with this topic.

I've always wondered this. We all know he considers this one of his toughest losses. Considering He always had so much respect for Rafa and he had been on top for so long, not to mention won the title the previous 5 years, should it really have bothered him that much? I think the press was ready to bury him at that point and were salivating over who would be the "next" guy, which is why he reacted the way he did after the AO final the next year. I think he was determined to show he wasn't done yet but maybe even started to question himself after that loss. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

He wanted be the 1st man in history of tennis to beat Nadal while also fighting mono at the same time.

Why did he make it? I have only implied a possible reason. That he made it before the final only partially allays my suspicions as to the color of his motivation. That's all. I could be completely wrong, but I took the offensive knowing the risk involved. It is generally not good policy to attack other posters, but when you have a strong hunch about something, it is OK not to ignore your gut IMO. If he disagrees with what I said, he can add me to his ignore list or come straight back at me and refute what I said. I am not above taking correction in such events, and I do not seek nor need to have the final say.

When defining a subject, I was taught to set forward its essential attributes and to avoid at all costs using examples of that subject, because from its genus a species inherits every property of the genus, but the genus does not have every property belonging to all of the species that it encompasses. If ever forced to use an example in defining a subject, I was taught to settle for no less than a superlative example, one that beyond any doubt bests illustrates the subject. For me, the superlative example of Roger taking a loss hard was 09 OZ where his tears gushed. And so, on a Spiderman level I detected something was amiss when I read this thread title.

Click to expand...

You assumed he made this thread because you thought he was mad that Rafa lost in Chile. Fact: he made the thread before the finals in Chile, which proves you were wrong. The OP is not NSK (a notorious Fed basher) therefore, one should read his thread without malice.

On your second paragraph: I'm not a native speaker and obviously not as eloquent as you are, but you have flouted several maxims in Gricean's efficient way of communication.

Truth to be told with regards to this bowl of soup, with assurances required from my vast experience of world cuisines, the cardamom gives it an extra edge. I can also detect the presence of vinegar which enhances the mixture of garlic and wild onions. The abundance of salt however overwhelms the teaspoon of honey in the additives. I would prefer it to be cooked on a pre-heated oven on a very low temperature that will gradually rise to maximum limit of 90 degrees celsius. It should be served immediately. Sorry, all I wanted to say was: That damned soup was too salty and too cold for my liking.

It was not only Wimby 08 and AO 09 but the H2H leading upto that stage was the reason for Roger's emotional break down. Dubai, Monte Carlo, Rome and French Open losses in 2006 and then in 2008 all contributed to the suffering.

Everybody knows this about Rog which is why I think the OP was being disingenuous or grasping a fake pretense to dis on Federer now that Rafa was beaten by another nobody today in Chile. "Hmmm, Rafa lost today. I am a big fan of his. Now that he lost, what should I do? I know! I will start a thread that will remind Fed fans of a painful loss; that way I will have company in my misery."

Click to expand...

MichaelNadal will NOT do that. He is a gem of a guy and I rarely say such words about an anonymous internet poster. He wouldn't start a thread with the intention of hurting anyone, let alone Roger fans. I think he is asking a genuine question

You assumed he made this thread because you thought he was mad that Rafa lost in Chile. Fact: he made the thread before the finals in Chile, which proves you were wrong. The OP is not NSK (a notorious Fed basher) therefore, one should read his thread without malice.

On your second paragraph: I'm not a native speaker and obviously not as eloquent as you are, but you have flouted several maxims in Gricean's efficient way of communication.

Truth to be told with regards to this bowl of soup, with assurances required from my vast experience of world cuisines, the cardamom gives it an extra edge. I can also detect the presence of vinegar which enhances the mixture of garlic and wild onions. The abundance of salt however overwhelms the teaspoon of honey in the additives. I would prefer it to be cooked on a pre-heated oven on a very low temperature that will gradually rise to maximum limit of 90 degrees celsius. It should be served immediately. Sorry, all I wanted to say was: That damned soup was too salty and too cold for my liking.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent post. I very much like it because it is funny and I needed a laugh. I admit that I went overboard earlier; and then I was stuck with trying to get out of a corner that I had painted myself into. It was admittedly a pathetic try that I made, all that talk about predicates and definitions. Thanks again for your post. Cheers

You assumed he made this thread because you thought he was mad that Rafa lost in Chile. Fact: he made the thread before the finals in Chile, which proves you were wrong. The OP is not NSK (a notorious Fed basher) therefore, one should read his thread without malice.

On your second paragraph: I'm not a native speaker and obviously not as eloquent as you are, but you have flouted several maxims in Gricean's efficient way of communication.

Truth to be told with regards to this bowl of soup, with assurances required from my vast experience of world cuisines, the cardamom gives it an extra edge. I can also detect the presence of vinegar which enhances the mixture of garlic and wild onions. The abundance of salt however overwhelms the teaspoon of honey in the additives. I would prefer it to be cooked on a pre-heated oven on a very low temperature that will gradually rise to maximum limit of 90 degrees celsius. It should be served immediately. Sorry, all I wanted to say was: That damned soup was too salty and too cold for my liking.

Click to expand...

How is it that a non-native speaker knows about Gricean maxims? :shock: Do tell

During the whole match, fed was behind nadal, it's a fact.He even saved mp with that sick bh dtl before losing with a horrible fh in the net due to lack of light...
After all these efforts he lost and maybe he felt robbed
That must have been hard...